GR 146224; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146224 ; January 26, 2007
Virginia Real, Petitioner, vs. Sisenando H. Belo, Respondent.
FACTS
A fire originating from petitioner Virginia Real’s Wasabe Fastfood stall gutted adjacent stalls, including respondent Sisenando Belo’s BS Masters stall. A fire investigation concluded the fire was caused by leaking fumes from Real’s LPG stove and tank. Belo filed a complaint for damages, alleging Real’s negligence in maintaining equipment and supervising employees. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for Belo, awarding temperate damages and attorney’s fees, finding the fire was not a fortuitous event and that Real was negligent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed but increased the temperate damages.
Real filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright for procedural deficiencies, noting the failure to attach a certified true copy of the RTC Decision, a certified copy of the MeTC Decision, and material portions of the record like position papers. Real’s motion for reconsideration, which attached the certified copies, was denied.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition for review due to procedural non-compliance. Subsidiarily, the Court addresses whether Real can be held liable for damages arising from the fire.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. On procedure, the Court held that strict compliance with the rules on the contents of a petition for review under Rule 42 is mandatory. The certification of the RTC Decision by a court employee other than the Clerk of Court, without a valid explanation for the Clerk’s absence, was insufficient. The requirement to attach the MeTC Decision and material portions of the record is indispensable as they are necessary for the CA to fully comprehend the case’s factual and legal antecedents. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for these fatal procedural flaws.
On the substantive issue of liability, the Court found no reason to deviate from the lower courts’ factual findings, which are binding in a Rule 45 petition. The fire investigator’s report established the origin of the fire from Real’s stall due to a gas leak. This negated the claim of a fortuitous event, as the leak pointed to a lack of due diligence in maintaining equipment. Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, Real’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damage, making her liable. The RTC’s increase of the temperate damages was also proper, as it was a reasonable approximation of the loss proved during trial.